2022/2021(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the findings of the European Court of Auditors Review No 05/2021 on the EU framework for large transport infrastructure projects: an international comparison. Notes that Review No 05/2021 identified four specific challenges for the Commission concerning the large transport projects: insufficient cost-benefit analysis, high administrative burden, lack of risk based approach in monitoring, and insufficient alignment between EU and national transport strategies;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recognises that environmental evaluations, consultation and the participation of the public are necessary at the early stages of the project; recalls however that those consultations can lead to unjustified delays in the planning and construction phases, as well as the existence of multiple environmental evaluations arising from different EU legislation and national regulations for the permitting of transport projects; calls therefore for the establishment of a simplified common procedure in a view of limiting administrative burden for project promotors;

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 d (new)

12 d. Strongly welcomes the Commission’s RePowerEU plan and asks that the Commission address issues relating to rising transport and energy costs and improve energy independence in the Union;

Amendment 101 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 e (new)

12 e. Calls for the swift agreement and implementation of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation;

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 f (new)

12 f. Recognises that Maritime seaports are clean energy hubs of the future and important facilitators of the energy transition across Europe. In their role as energy hubs, maritime seaports will be essential in realising the EU’s climate objectives for 2030 and 2050, as well as the ambitions outlined in the REPowerEU plan;

Amendment 103 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 g (new)

12 g. Stresses that maritime seaports are increasingly taking up new responsibilities and are involved in new services, such as sustainable energy production, research on the blue economy, and military mobility. In their role as multi-service actors, maritime seaports can substantially contribute to a sustainable, digital and resilient European economy;

Amendment 104 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Recognises the need to ensure the connectivity of countries, and regions, including / particularly remote, insular and outermost ones, impacted by the war in Ukraine and/or Brexit.

Amendment 105 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Recognises the need to ensure the connectivity of countries and regions impacted by the war in Ukraine and/or Brexit, and the need to stop cooperation with Russia and Belarus.

Amendment 106 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Recognises the need to ensure the connectivity of countries and regions impacted by the ~~war in~~Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and/or Brexit.

Amendment 107 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Calls for the swift integration of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen agreement as this would significantly improve north-west connectivity in Eastern Europe and furthermore streamlines connectivity for all transport modes along the Rhine-Danube and Orient-Eastern Mediterranean corridors;

Amendment 108 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Recognises the importance of the TEN-T network for improved connectivity with strategic partners in third countries; Calls on the Commission to strengthen cross-border connections towards the Eastern Neighbourhood, EFTA countries and the UK;

Amendment 109 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13 b. Recalls the Commission Communication from12 May 2022 on “Solidarity Lanes" which outlines several transport infrastructure challenges facing the EU and its neighbours. Highlights the importance of addressing these challenges in order to support global food security and the recovery of the Ukrainian economy. Stresses that the Communication proposed assessing the extension of the European Transport Corridors into Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Considers that the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) should act as an effective financial incentive to bridge the gap between national interests and European added value, contributing to align priority levels and timelines particularly of cross-border projects or segments, while ensuring at the same time a fair distribution of funding;

Amendment 110 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13 b. Recognises the need to ensure the connectivity of remote and underdeveloped regions;

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13 c. Calls on the Commission to support Ukraine and its efforts to strengthen rail connections between Ukraine and the EU with a view for the future integration of the Ukrainian transport facilities in the TEN-T network;

Amendment 112 #

Rovana PLUMB, Kathleen VAN BREMPT, Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 d (new)

13 d. Stresses that the CEF is a key enabler for achieving the objectives of the trans-European transport network (TEN- T) policy; points out that investment needs in the TEN-T are estimated at EUR 500 billion to complete the core network by 2030 and EUR 1500billion for the entire network by 2050; highlights the strategic value of the TEN-T and CEF for meeting new objectives as regards the EU sustainable and smart mobility strategy, enhanced military mobility in the EU and stronger connectivity with our strategic partners in non-EU countries;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that large transport infrastructure projects are fully aligned with the objectives in European Green Deal and contribute to the sustainability, safety and interoperability of transport, as well as to job creation in the sector;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Stresses that multiple, different and complex permit granting procedures, cross-border procurement procedures and other procedures greatly hinder the timely implementation of projects and often result in significant delays and increased costs;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Recognises that Directive 2021/1187 calls on Member States to implement a simplified single point of contact procedure to reduce the complexity, improve the efficiency and increase the transparency of the procedures. The designation of an authority serving as point of contact for the project promoter should reduce the complexity, improve the efficiency and increase the transparency of the procedures;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Stresses that environmental evaluations should be carried out in compliance with the measures and timeframes outlined in the Smart TEN-T Directive;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2 d. Stresses that Member States and project promoters should give due consideration to Directive (EU)2021/1187 of the European Parliament and the Council (the “Smart TEN-T Directive”) to avoid delays and cost overruns, and to ensure the timely completion of the TEN- T network;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget to be increased to meet the additional costs stemming from the enlargement of the TEN-T and the integration of military mobility, the war in Ukraine and high inflation; Notes that the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) reflects the priorities of the Union at the time of adoption in 2020 and stresses that since then the geopolitical situation in Europe has changed further adjustment of MFF is necessary;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget to be increased to meet the additional costs stemming from the reinforcement and the enlargement of the TEN-T, particularly in cross-border sections, and the integration of military mobility, the war in Ukraine and high inflation; calls for the enhancing of strategic infrastructure segments of the transport network to support their dual use for military and civilian purposes;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget to be significantly increased to meet the investment needs required to complete the TEN-T networks, as well as the additional costs stemming from the enlargement of the TEN-T and the integration of military mobility, the war in Ukraine and high inflation;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the findings of the European Court of Auditors Review No 05/2021 on the EU framework for large transport infrastructure projects: an international comparison; recalls the need for the European Commission and Member States to strongly take into consideration the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors’ works on transport infrastructure projects in order to speed-up their deployment;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Regrets that the MFF, as well as the national Recovery Plans still do not give a strong signal towards infrastructure investments nor priority to the completion of the TEN-T (no increase of CEF Transport envelope, no explicit dedicated financing under the Recovery Plan to transport); regrets the strong disparities between Member States in terms of investments planned for transport infrastructure; recalls the reduction of the budget of the Military Mobility from 5.9 bns euros to 1.69 bns;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Highlights the key role of CEF funding in large infrastructure projects. Considers that the current financial envelope does not adequately reflect the Union's current needs and objectives. Stresses particularly the extension of TEN-T towards the Eastern Neighbourhood, military mobility, and complementing TEN-T and TEN-E networks;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Highlights that investment needs in the TEN-T are estimated at EUR 500 billion to complete the core network by 2030 and EUR 1.5 Trillion for the entire network by 2050; Recognises the strategic value of the TEN-T and CEF for meeting new objectives as regards the EU sustainable and smart mobility strategy, enhanced military mobility in the EU and stronger connectivity with our strategic partners in non-EU countries;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Calls for the Commission and Member States to rapidly establish a financial framework to better foster and attract private investments towards infrastructure projects, and to develop innovative financial arrangements, notably through blending mechanisms;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Stresses that Russia's illegal and unjusified war against Ukraine poses severe challenges for the EU transport and tourism sector. Further notes the impact the war has had on inflation rates in the Union as a result of rising fuel and energy prices; Calls for a coordinated response from the Union alongside increased funding to address these issues and to avoid any delays in the implementation of large infrastructure projects;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Calls for the creation, in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MMF) 2028-2035, of a budget envelope dedicated to “external transport” in the CEF III, in order to increase cooperation with third countries regarding cross- border projects and infrastructure deployment;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3 d. Notes the intention of the Commission to use the CEF to support interoperability and connectivity projects linking the EU and Ukrainian transport networks; Asks that a separate envelope for solidarity lanes between the EU and Ukraine be established. Stresses the need to increase to the current CEF budget for the period 2021-2027 and further calls on the Commission to plan an ambitious successor programme to CEF II for the MFF post-2027;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3 e. Recognises that the revision of Regulation 1315/2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the TEN-T network could see an additional investment need of 30% in average annual investments.

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3 f. Considering the current geopolitical reality, the EU's new priorities should be matched with additional money, and should not come at the expense of other transport programmes and priorities;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Highlights that EU policy underperforms regarding the implementation of large infrastructure projects, especially in the areas of coordinating, selecting, monitoring, and evaluating infrastructure projects;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 g (new)

3 g. Stresses the strategic importance of the frontloading CEF to ensure the money is utilised by the end of the current programming period;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 h (new)

3 h. Stresses the need for the Commission to carry out an assessment of the economic and social consequences of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine on all modes of transport in the EU and to present a proposal with legislative and/or financial measures within the MFF framework, to mitigate the negative effects;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 i (new)

3 i. Calls on the Commission to provide appropriate funding to Member States for the development of dual use infrastructure;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. AStresses that in order to ensure completion of the TEN-T network in due time it is essential that the level of funding, including Union funding, matches the ambition and the aggregated financial needs of the infrastructure projects, asks that CEF funding for transport priorities be enhanced and ring- fenced;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Asks that CEF funding for transport priorities be ~~ring-fenced~~increased and ring-fenced; deplores the reallocation and cuts of budgets by the European Commission from funding programmes as set in the MFF towards new instruments through the mandate, such the budget cut of 400 million from CEF towards Chips Act;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Asks that CEF funding for transport priorities be ring-fenced; Regrets that the Commission has proposed earmarking CEF funding for reallocation in the Digital Europe Programme of the European Chips Act; Stresses the need for the CEF to be used solely for transport related initiatives;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Asks that CEF funding for transport priorities be ring-fenced; calls for new and innovative modes of financing to bridge the funding gap of the projects, blending of grants and loans being the mechanism under the CEF to leverage public grants for key priority projects;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Recognises the persistent challenges of implementing cross-border projects in the field of transport; highlights the necessity to emphasise and incentivise the good cooperation between authorities at all levels from different Member States to reduce delays and costs in cases of misalignment of the schedules and the priorities;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Emphasises that it is of utmost importance that EU funded large transport infrastructure projects are fully in line with, and contribute to, the objectives set in the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, particularly as it regards a modal shift towards rail and sustainable transport modes;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls for European structural and investment Funds to greater focus on transport investments, to replicate the governance of CEF, which has demonstrated its strong efficiency, based on a centralised management resulting in a selection of projects with high European added value;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Calls on the Commission to reconsider its approach when evaluating projects and allocating EU-funding in order to address and reduce the administrative burden;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Points out that different transport modes and their associated infrastructures have negative externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and air pollution, among others, which are still not internalised in terms of transport costs;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Recalls that according to the European Court of Auditors, congestion in the EU costs 270 billion euro yearly, and may reduce productivity by 30 percent, points out that new or capacity enhanced roads generate induced demand, which does not allow effective combating of congestion and interferes with EU climate and modal shift goals, considers therefore that clear indicators and targets concerning emissions, air quality, congestion and improved transport efficiency need to be further developed and part of the approval criteria for funding;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recognises the need for greater investment in timely pre-feasibility studies and feasibility studies, scoping, detailed design, strategic environmental and climate assessment, and public consultation in the early project stages to avoid costly delays at the later planning and construction phases;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Recalls that maintenance is of paramount importance to ensure the long term well-functioning transport projects and their high-quality; highlights that periodical and regular maintenance allows to save money over the life time of the project; believes that the needs and costs of maintenance should therefore be included in the planning phase of the infrastructure project over its life-time; calls for this requirement to be a precondition to receiving funding from the Connecting Europe Facility;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a legislative framework in order to create a Single European Digital Enforcement Area (SEDEA) in order to enable responsible enforcement authorities to conduct targeted risk-based controls and inspections;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls on the European Commission to propose a methodology for the assessment and adjustment of the projects`costs and their financing, fully considering the impacts of the overlapping climate, biodiversity and geopolitical crises;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Asks the Commission to clearly define what constitutes a 'large transport infrastructure project', for different transport modes;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Calls for Union funding for large transport infrastructure projects to be granted only when the project in question contributes with significant European added value in terms of the TEN-T network as a whole, such as projects removing major bottlenecks, and considers that EU funding should prioritise such projects where national public and private investment incentive is insufficient to ensure timely completion of the projects;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Welcomes the RePower EU Communication and the Commission’s intention to establish ‘go to areas’ with simplified permitting procedures for critical energy infrastructure. Notes that this concept could be extended to critical transport infrastructure projects aimed at decarbonising the sector;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recognises the need for streamlined regulatory processes to ensure appropriate public consultation while ensuring that critical infrastructure projects are not unduly blocked, stresses that while accelerated procedures could be envisaged for priority projects in terms of European added value, a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment is mandatory;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Calls on the Commission to use a risk-based approach to its monitoring of EU co-funded projects in line with the findings of the Court of Auditor's report;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recognises the need for streamlined regulatory processes to ensure appropriate public consultation while ensuring that critical infrastructure projects are not unduly blocked; recalls that those consultations need to respect the timeframe set in the SMART TEN-T directive in order to avoid unnecessary delays;

Amendment 51 #

Leila CHAIBI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recognises the need ~~for streamlined reg~~to prioritize public consultat~~ory processes to ensure appropriate public consultat~~ion through process that really include people affected by transport project and take into account their opinion while ensuring that critical infrastructure projects are ~~not unduly blocked~~beneficial for all;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Underlines that large transport infrastructure projects shall adhere to the “Do No Significant Harm” principle and be in line with the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, as well as be in line with and contribute to the EU zero pollution vision for 2050 and corresponding 2030 targets, emphasises the importance of ensuring that the selection of projects under EU funding is fully in line with the European Green Deal, the EU Climate Law and the EU climate targets for 2030 and 2050;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Stresses the importance of performing for every large infrastructure transport project a thorough Social and Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis, including a climate impact analysis, in order to obtain an accurate estimation for the return on investment and particularly the life-cycle emissions savings, with 2050 as a milestone;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Considers important the establishment of a prioritisation on the basis of environmental and climate performance criteria, beyond the socio- economic dimension, according to which the EU funding shall be awarded;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Highlights the relevance of duly assessing the frequency of usage as well as passenger and freight volumes for infrastructure projects, suggests that the impact of several smaller projects combined, for example smaller-scale regional projects used on a nearly daily basis by citizens, for instance for commuting, may have a higher added value than a single large transport infrastructure project, at similar levels of investment;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. CNotes that ex post evaluation is an important tool for providing insights into the performance and outcomes of transport infrastructure and decision- making, and for informing the public; calls for systematic ex post evaluation of the large transport projects co-funded by the EU and for their proper maintenance, following the criteria of coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and European added value;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for systematic ex post evaluation of the large transport projects co-funded by the EU ~~and for their proper maintenance;~~ ; Asks that due consideration be made by Member States and project promotors during the planning stages to the maintenance costs over the life-time of an infrastructure project. Insists that this requirement be a precondition for receiving funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for systematic independent ex post evaluation of the large transport projects co-funded by the EU ~~and for their proper maintenance~~, including an updated cost-benefit analysis and a thorough analysis of the net climate impact with a life-cycle approach, calls for proper maintenance of completed projects;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Suggests using lessons learned from evaluations of ongoing TEN-T projects when considering future new large transport infrastructure projects funded by the EU, underlines the importance of ensuring that the information is shared openly and timely in order to disseminate best practices and prevent the repetition of previous mistakes, with the ultimate aim of improving the quality of large transport infrastructure projects;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1 d. Regrets that the Court of Auditors found that many EU co-funded projects are subject to cost overruns and significant delays compared to initial estimates at the project planning stage. Of the projects studied, the average budget overrun was more than €2 billion per project or an increase of 47% on initial estimates. Regrets that the audit also found that the average delay associated with the EU co-funded projects studied was 11 years;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Strongly suggests that large infrastructure projects be considered, monitored and evaluated also in terms of the modernisation and upgrading of connecting lines, in particular when it comes to the electrification of connecting railway lines, in order to ensure European added value both in terms of connectivity and climate goals;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Member States to make completing the core TEN-T network by 2030 a key priority over the completion of the extended and the comprehensive networks; calls for national projects that are not aligned with the TEN-T priorities to not be considered as a priority for receiving European funds;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Member States to make completing the core TEN-T network a key priority, while recognising the need and added value of timely and devoted funding directed at the completion of the comprehensive network in due time;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Member States to make completing the core TEN-T network in its entirety by 2030 a key priority;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Requests that the Commission, jointly with the European Court of Auditors and OLAF, closely monitor the EU large transport infrastructure projects, as such public investments are particularly sensitive to fraud, considers this essential to ensure transparency and prevent corruption and misuse of taxpayers' money, as well as to ensure that the highest safety standards for construction workers and future users are not compromised;

Amendment 65 #

Leila CHAIBI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Calls the Commission and the Member States to take into account the carbon footprint of the whole life cycle and the environmental impacts of Large Transport Infrastructure Projects, such as the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway, and consequently not financing those projects whether there are not sustainable from an environmental and climatic point of view;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Stresses that Member States should ensure coherence between the TEN-T Regulation and their national transport and investment plans. Stresses that projects within Member State national plans should not be prioritised ahead of projects that are aligned with the Union's transport objectives;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Highlights that investments should be prioritised towards rail projects, considering its high potential for decarbonisation and connectivity in the EU and in order to meet the Union’s climate objective;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Recognises the interest of earmarking mechanisms from road and air to rail as a complementary budgetary tool to stimulate this mode of transport across the EU;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Highlights that in many Member States, priority treatment is given to certain project categories based on their strategic importance, characterised by shorter timelines, simultaneous and/or simplified procedures; considers that when such a framework exists within a national legal framework, it should automatically apply to projects on the TEN-T; calls for Member States who national legal frameworks lack such priority treatment to establish one for transport projects;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)

1 e. Calls on the Commission to take measures and adapt the process of selection, planning and implementation of EU-funding projects to avoid significant cost overrun in order to properly utilise taxpayers money and meet the deadlines set out in TEN-T and other funding schemes;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for the prioritisation of cross- border interconnectivity projects ~~and the interconnectivity of different~~, including regional, smaller-scale existing infrastructure projects that still constitute a missing link and whose completion can generate further cohesion and integration, calls for the prioritisation of the interconnectivity of different transport modes, in particular to promote multimodality and a modal shift to more sustainable transport modes;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for the prioritisation of cross- border interconnectivity projects and the interconnectivity of different transport modes; Stresses that Member States should identify strategic segments, that enhance cross-border connectivity and consider their urgent achievement to be the highest priority;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for the prioritisation of cross- border interconnectivity projects ~~and the interconnectivity of different transport modes~~, aiming at removing bottlenecks, addressing missing links, and improving the interconnectivity of different transport modes; considers that those projects hold the highest European added-value;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Highlights that TEN-T funds should be used to promote broader European connectivity rather than for the prioritisation or protection of national interests;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9 b. Recalls the importance of increasing connectivity of the network, which depends on interconnecting projects often implemented by various Member States along one corridor. Calls for better alignment and coordination between EU and national plans for transport infrastructure;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9 c. Notes that airport and port connectivity by train is lacking in many Member States and calls for multimodal connectivity to primary airports to be addressed as a priority;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Recognises that transport and energy systems are interconnected; calls on the Commission to ensure that the trans- European energy network (TEN-E) is compatible with the TEN-T, as well as with Regulation (EU) […] [on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure], and that there are no gaps in the support architecture in order to deliver strategic independence; calls for a massive deployment of recharging and refuelling infrastructure along the TEN-T in order to meet the Union’s climate goals;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Recognises that transport and energy systems are interconnected; calls on the Commission to ensure that the trans- European energy network (TEN-E) is compatible with the TEN-T ands well as with the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation, particularly regarding zero- emission mobility, in order to foster synergies between the networks and ensure that there are no gaps in the support architecture in order to deliver strategic independence;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Recognises that transport and energy systems are interconnected; calls on the Commission to ensure that the trans- European energy network (TEN-E) is compatible with the TEN-T and that there are no gaps in the support architecture in order to deliver strategic independence and to achieve a comprehensive approach to public spending;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Recognises that transport and energy systems are interconnected; calls on the Commission to ensure that the trans- European energy network (TEN-E) is compatible when applicable with the TEN- T and that there are no gaps in the support architecture in order to deliver strategic energy independence;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes Directive (EU) 2021/1187 on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the trans- European transport network (TEN-T)1 and urges the Member States to implement it more effectively. Stresses the call for Member States to put in place a simplified and harmonised permitting procedure regarding environmental assessments. Highlights that shorter timelines, simultaneous procedures and limited timeframes for appeals were indicated as measures possible for a more efficient system; _________________ 1 OJ L 258, 20.7.2021, p. 1.

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Calls for stronger synergies across all modes of transport, including for active modes by removing barriers to active mobility; calls for the improvement of the civilian-military (“dual-use”) approach to infrastructure development in order to increase the Union’s resilience; calls for increasing the resilience of transport infrastructure to climatic and geopolitical hazards;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Underlines the need to promote synergies between the TEN-T and TEN-E networks to significantly increase the production, supply and storage of renewable energy in the Union;

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10 b. Notes the short term necessity to import LNG as a transitional fuel;

Amendment 83 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10 c. Highlights the potential of ports in wind energy production for the creation of renewable fuel; recognises the role that both TEN-E and TEN-T can play in realising this potential;

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to submit an annual implementation report to the European and national parliaments outlining progress on the completion of the TEN-T as well as the reasons highlighting the possible delays; calls for the Commission to use all its existing instruments, including implementing acts, in order to avoid those delays and ensure the timely completion of the TEN-T; considers that unjustified delays should justify a reduction or the withdrawal of the grant under CEF;

Amendment 85 #

Barbara THALER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Calls on the Commission to include a chapter on all projects funded by CEF which face delays of more than 2 years on a county by country basis. This chapter shall also contain details on the responsible entities or processes which caused the delays including a list of necessary countermeasures;

Amendment 86 #

11 a. Calls for the reinforcement of the role of European Coordinators in order to facilitate the deployment of infrastructure projects along the corridors;

Amendment 87 #

Rovana PLUMB, Kathleen VAN BREMPT, Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11 b. Highlights the benefits of a single managing entity for the realisation of cross-border transport infrastructure projects;

Amendment 88 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Highlights the need for significant investment to ensure the decarboniseation of the transport sector, and to align it with the objectives in the European Green Deal, as well as to improve the safety, efficiency and accessibility of transport, in order to pave the way to sustainable next- generation mobility;

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Highlights the need for significant investment to decarbonise the transport sector, prioritising investment in infrastructure for the most sustainable transport modes and associated technologies, for instance ensuring European funding for a timely roll-out, simultaneously onboard and trackside, of ERTMS;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes Directive (EU) 2021/1187 on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the trans- European transport network (TEN-T)1 and urges the Member States to implement it more effectively; , particularly regarding cross-border sections in order to prevent that they systematically become bottlenecks and delay the overall completion of the European Transport Corridors and the TEN-T network; _________________ 1 OJ L 258, 20.7.2021, p. 1.

Amendment 90 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Highlights the need for significant investment at European and national levels to decarbonise the transport sector, by supporting the deployment of innovative transport solutions, modal shift, low-emission mobility solutions and alternative fuels;

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Highlights the need for significant investment to decarbonise the transport sector~~Recognises however, that any and all efforts to decarbonise the transport sector have to be in line with the principle of technological neutrality;

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Stresses the importance of ensuring that large transport infrastructure projects contribute to the promotion of active mobility, by incorporating where feasible associated infrastructure for active mobility, such as safe bike and walking lanes, in the overall project, and ensuring that any new project does not become a significant obstacle to existing active mobility infrastructure either in its construction phase or completion, considers that due consideration of active mobility infrastructure shall be deemed an added value of large transport infrastructure projects in application processes;

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Highlights the need to prioritise smart and sustainable transport projects and to significantly increase capacity and interoperability in smart and sustainable modes of transport. Notes that refuelling and electrical grid infrastructure and an increased supply of sustainable energy are critical to meeting the targets of the Green Deal and strategic independence;

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls for the prioritisation of projects contributing to the much-needed harmonisation of alternative fuels infrastructure deployment across the Union, as per the objective of Regulation 2022/XXX[Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation];

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. Suggests that TEN-T criteria are adapted to include energy generation capacity in addition to its footfall and tonnage requirements in order to better align TEN-E and TEN-T to meet the Union's renewable energy targets, as well as the decarbonisation of our transport system;

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. Asks the Commission to fully recognise the European added value of the EuroVelo transport network, and to dedicate a larger portion of transport funding towards active mobility infrastructure such as bike infrastructure;

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12 c. Recognises that expanding and developing infrastructure specifically for public transport, in particular rail infrastructure, benefits a larger portion of the European population compared to transport infrastructure geared towards passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, and thus has a greater added value in terms of emissions reduction and effective use of infrastructure, space, energy, and accessibility;

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12 c. Stresses the urgent need to complete the deployment of ERTMS by 2030. Highlights that this process is ongoing for more than 20 years and calls on Member States with interconnected rail systems to explain the delays and immediately put forward national plans to deploy ERTMS;

Amendment 99 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 d (new)

12 d. Underlines that rail transport is inherently significantly less greenhouse gas intensive than road transport, by around 80% according to EEA Briefing no. 01/2021, considers therefore that, in order to align with the EU Climate Goals, CEF funding should prioritise large transport infrastructure projects in rail over large transport infrastructure projects in road;

source: 738.504

2023/03/01 CONT 41 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the EU’s Common Transport Policy was established to create a common transport area across Europe; whereas its priority operational objective since 2013 has been to build a ‘core network’ by 2030, and a ‘comprehensive network’ by 2050; whereas the networks include all modes of transport including maritime, rail, road and air;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights, that the EU is currently experiencing an unprecedented situation whereby numerous sources of funding must be absorbed simultaneously and that Member States ~~often do not have the~~should have proper administrative capacity to handle all the funding available from the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) through the national recovery and resilience plans while trying to absorb EUR 392 billion of cohesion policy funding before the end of 2027; ~~is concerned by the clear competition betwee~~Notes that within the 2021-2027 cohesion funds and NextGenerationEU (NGEU), as Member States have to prioritise funding instruments by their eligibility deadline; calls for synergies between cohesion funding and the RRF (the largest instrument in the NGEU package), with coherence, convergence and coordination between the two, in order to increase the impact of investments on the ground ~~and avoid double funding~~;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Highlights, further, that FAST (Flexible Assistance for Territories) - CARE is providing the possibility to phase in delayed projects from the 2014-2020 period to the 2021-2027 period; ~~draws attention, nevertheless, to the fact that the possible net reduction of the respective allocations in the current period is putting at risk the EU budget and its implementation;~~

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the number of high impact, successful projects co-financed by the EU budget; notes, in particular, the impact of projects such as: the construction of a high-speed railway platform (Spain, EUR 749 million); the doubling of the ‘Bari s. Andrea bitetto’ railway section (Italy, EUR 421 million); the construction of a new Route du Littoral (France, EUR 304 million); the modernisation of the Sofia-Plovdiv railway line: railway section Elin Pelin – Kostenets (Bulgaria, EUR 553 million); the construction of an express road between Craiova and Pitesti (Romania, EUR 832 million); the construction of the S7 expressway between Gdańsk and Elbląg, and Thorns and Elbląg (Poland, EUR 504 million); the improvement of TEN-T road connectivity with South Dalmatia (Croatia, EUR 418 million); works on the D35 motorway in the section MÚK Opatovice-Časy-Ostrov (Czechia, EUR 384 million); the construction of the Patras Pyrgos motorway (Greece, EUR 355 million); the modernisation of the railway line between Púchov and Žilina (Slovakia, EUR 349 million); upgrading the existing Maribor- Šentilj railway (Slovenia, EUR 195 million); modernising the Ovar-Gaia railroad (Portugal, EUR 140 million); carrying out stage III of the western bypass of Vilnius (Lithuania, EUR 92 million); works on state road No 2, Tallinn-Tartu- Võru-Luhamaa Võõbu-Mäo (Estonia, EUR 59 million); the construction of the main state motorway, A2 Riga-Sigulda-Estonian border (Latvia, EUR 44 million); and the construction of a multi-level road junction at EA20A & EA21 along the TEN-T (Malta, EUR 41 million); also points out to the role that the EIB plays in supporting innovative and sustainable infrastructure projects in the Member States, both on national and local level;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls that in the EU, the competence to implement projects lies with the Member States; further recalls that Member States should ensure a coherence between their national transport and investments plans with the EU transport objectives in order to accelerate the implementation of large infrastructure transport projects and the finalisation of the TEN-T; highlights that the Commission has for this purpose appointed European coordinators to facilitate the implementation of all infrastructure projects along each of the nine core transport network corridors set out in the TEN-T Regulation; is concerned about the risk of misalignment between the EU’s and Member States’ strategic priorities and call for a subsequent reinforcement of the role of European Coordinators in order to facilitate the deployment of infrastructure projects along the TEN-T corridors;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Is concerned by the limited Commission~~Stresses that the Commission should have a more prominent role in the oversight of project planning and implementation along transport network corridors, as Member States’ priorities are often mainly determined in the national context and may thus neglect cross-border sections where EU co-funded large infrastructure projects are located; highlights the risk of decreased utility derived from the use of EU funds if adequate performance is not achieved; believes that in order to address this issue, the coherence between national transport plans and investments and EU priorities should be strengthened, as should the conditionality of EU funding on engagement with EU priorities in terms of transport infrastructure deployment;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Recalls that under the CEF programme, the Commission selects the infrastructure projects which will benefit from EU co-funding and determines the EU financial contribution on the basis of competitive periodical calls for proposals; is concerned about the risk of insufficient scrutiny of cost-benefit analyses (CBA) at project selection; welcomes that since 2015 the Commission has introduced a specific assessment of the projects’ CBA by dedicated external experts; regrets that this assessment may be solely based on the information contained in the project proposal; calls for the Commission to ensure that project promoters of large transport projects must submit in their application the raw data and analyses used for their CBA, in order to ensure adequate decision-making and use of EU funds;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Acknowledges that according to the European Court of Auditors (ECA), large transport projects require significant implementation time; notes that according to ~~the European Court of Auditors,~~ECA the average expected construction time for the audited EU co-funded large transport projects up to 2020 was 15 years~~, due in part to significant delays (of up to 11 years) compared with the initial schedules~~ and that the average delay was 11 years and that such delays put the efficiency of EU co-funding at risk; highlights that this timeframe excludes the planning period, when projects can also receive EU co- funding for actions such as studies; notes that as the EU co-funding is organised around the seven-year multiannual financial framework period, large transport projects are often co-funded via several subsequent grants, each requiring a new project proposal and selection process; is concerned that this leads to duplication of effort for the project promoters and public authorities, increasing the administrative burden; notes with concern that such delays put the efficiency of EU co-funding at risk; urges Member States to implement Directive 2021/1187 on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the TEN-T in order to enable simplified and harmonised permitting procedures and prevent delays in the projects;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses, moreover, that many EU co-funded projects are subject to cost overruns compared to initial estimates at the project planning stage; highlights that this will become even more problematic in the post-COVID-19 environment and in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; points especially to the rising inflation rates and the increasing costs of construction and raw materials, and their impact on project budgets; draws attention to the fact that inflation represents an enormous risk to current and future infrastructure projects, which may be stalled due to the highly inflated prices of building and raw materials; calls for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget to be increased to meet the additional costs stemming from inflation, as well as other geopolitical and transition needs and challenges that affect the implementation of the TEN-T;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Also regrets that the EU co-funded large infrastructure projects experience on average longer delays than comparable transport projects worldwide; believes that potential reasons for these longer delays are the specific coordination challenges faced by cross-border projects and that when selected, they were still affected by uncertainties, such as stakeholder acceptance or missing environmental permits;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes the significant delays in the adoption of partnership agreements (PAs) and programmes in the context of cohesion policy implementation in the current programming period 2021-2027; remarks that the programmes should have been operational since January 2021; is concerned about the slow pace of implementation; acknowledges, however, that we have entered a new phase of implementation and that the Commission has so far approved 25 PAs; ~~acknowledg~~welcomes that at least 142 programmes have been submitted in the context of cohesion policy as of 25 October 2022, and that this also constitutes a considerable step forward7 ; _________________ 7 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021- 2027_en#inline-nav-12; https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/in- your-country/programmes_en.

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the Union’s transport policy aims to ensure the smooth, efficient, safe and free movement of people and goods throughout the EU by means of integrated networks using all modes of transport, aiming to provide efficient, interoperable, safe and environmentally friendly mobility solutions within the EU and to create the conditions for a competitive industry generating growth and jobs;

Amendment 20 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Ilana CICUREL, Ramona STRUGARIU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Regrets that the MFF, as well as the national Recovery Plans still do not give a strong signal towards infrastructure investments nor priority to the completion of the TEN-T (no increase of CEF Transport envelope, no explicit dedicated financing under the Recovery Plan to transport); regrets the strong disparities between Member States in terms of investments planned for transport infrastructure; recalls the reduction of the budget of the Military Mobility from 5.9 bns euros to 1.69 bns

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Highlights that the project monitoring performed by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) is mainly oriented towards financial aspects and outputs and does not focus on projects’ broader results and impacts; ~~regrets that, consequently, there is only limited monitoring data that is suitable for the subsequent evaluation of these projec~~calls on the Commission and CINEA to make use of more results-oriented goals and indicators to improve the potential for synergies between different funding programmes as well as to redesign the performance framework to better monitor project results;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Highlights that the project monitoring performed by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency is mainly oriented towards financial aspects and outputs and does not focus on projects’ broader results and impacts, such as on the local population and the environment; regrets that, consequently, there is only limited monitoring data that is suitable for the subsequent evaluation of these projects;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes that while the Union produces systematic ex post evaluations of programmes, the Commission has not performed in a systematic method, nor has it required project promoters to perform, ~~systematic~~ ex post assessments of individual EU co- funded large transport projects; notes that there is currently no legal obligation for them to do so; highlights that these ex post assessments could increase transparency on the effectiveness of the projects and allow deriving lessons-learnt for future large infrastructure projects;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Notes~~Finds it concerning that while the Union produces systematic ex post evaluations of programmes, the Commission has not performed, nor has it required project promoters to perform, systematic ex post assessments of individual EU co-funded large transport projects; notes that there is currently no legal obligation for them to do so;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Recommends that the Commission propose indicative definitions of a large regional, a large national and a large cross-border infrastructure project eligible for EU-funding to better focus the competing project proposals, to add clarity to the approved projects data collection and to further facilitate monitoring, control and evaluation activities;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. BIs concerned by the administrative burden that requesting additional information and analysis for the selection process may bring upon the project promoters; believes that a two-step approach whereby project promoters are invited to submit a comprehensive project proposal only once their expression of interest has been approved could be considered for the future programming period;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20 a. Encourages the Commission to consider a way in which it could be more visible in the stakeholder involvement process that could be extremely beneficial in promoting EU added value of large transport projects;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Is convinced that adequate control over fund implementation is a necessity as infrastructure projects are prone to irregularities including corruption; calls on the Commission and the Member States to put into mandatory use an open-source single integrated, interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data-mining and risk-scoring tool to access and analyse the relevant data, including information on beneficial ownership, and increase control reliability, with a view to a generalised application, including with the help of the Technical Support Instrument; emphasises that such data should allow for the strengthening of the control and audit processes, notably as regards fraud and conflicts of interest;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Expresses its concern that there is a lack of systematic evaluation of large transport projects in the EU and that existing monitoring is focused mainly on financial inputs and outputs rather than outcomes; calls for the outcomes of such projects to be given greater visibility, as they play a significant role in building long-term socio-economic and environmental benefits; calls, additionally, for a review of the long-term benefits of large transport projects and for the evaluation of any benefits that are additional to the direct benefits produced by such projects8 ; _________________ 8 ITF (2014), Major Transport Infrastructure Projects and Economic Development, ITF Round Tables, No. 154, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789282107720-en.

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Higlights that the Transeuropean Transport Network (TEN-T) policy is key to the good functioning of the internal market, to the connectivity and accessibility of all regions in the UE, as well as to the socioeconomic and territorial cohesion of the EU and to the European Green Deal objectives; recalls that large infrastructure projects play a crucial role in the delivery of the TEN-T policy as they are instrumental in removing bottlenecks and eliminating missing links, and are often located on cross-border sections;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls on the Commission to further strengthen ex post evaluation indicators by introducing criteria such as road safety; reduction of deaths and serious injuries; reduction of emissions; reduction of noise pollution; a~~nd increase in economic activity~~lleviation of other environmental disturbances; increase in economic activity in terms of income and employment benefits for local businesses and population; time and transport cost benefits for people and freight and other social benefits; notes, in this regard, that the lack of effective enforcement related to the quality of infrastructure is a significant additional contributor to poor road safety resulting in deaths and injuries; believes that measuring economic impacts through regional or national macroeconomic models could assist in alleviating any potential risks arising from the lack of scrutiny9 ; _________________ 9 ibid.

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls on the Commission to further strengthen ex post evaluation indicators by introducing criteria such as road safety; reduction of deaths and serious injuries; reduction of emissions; reduction of noise pollution; increase in the quality of air, and increase in economic activity; notes, in this regard, that the lack of effective enforcement related to the quality of infrastructure is a significant additional contributor to poor road safety resulting in deaths and injuries; believes that measuring economic and environmental impacts through regional or national macroeconomic models could assist in alleviating any potential risks arising from the lack of scrutiny9 ; _________________ 9 ibid.

Amendment 32 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Ilana CICUREL, Ramona STRUGARIU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Calls for the Commission and Member States to rapidly establish a financial framework to better foster and attract private investments towards infrastructure projects, and to develop innovative financial arrangements, notably through blending mechanisms

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls for complete alignment between the EU’s and Member States’ strategic priorities; ~~regrets the Commission’s limited oversight over the planning and implementation of projects along transport network corridor~~calls for a greater oversight of the Commission over the planning and implementation of projects along transport network corridors; notes that in many Member States, priority treatment is given to certain project categories based on their strategic importance, characterised by shorter timelines, simultaneous and/or simplified procedures; considers that when such a framework exists within a national legal framework, it should automatically apply to projects on the TEN-T; calls for Member States whose national legal frameworks lack such priority treatment to establish one for transport projects; concludes that this could have a positive impact in accelerating large transport infrastructure projects;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls for c~~omplet~~lose alignment between the EU’s and Member States’ strategic priorities; regrets the Commission’s limited oversight over the planning and implementation of projects along transport network corridors;

Amendment 35 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Ilana CICUREL, Ramona STRUGARIU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25 a. Calls for the creation, in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MMF) 2028-2035, of a budget envelope dedicated to “external transport” in the CEF III, in order to increase cooperation with thirds countries regarding cross- border projects and infrastructure deployment;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25 a. Calls on the Commission to focus on the development of cross-border transport infrastructure to ensure a better and greener connectivity in Europe; recommends increasing the availability of international night trains to provide sustainable transport alternatives;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)

25 b. Believes that given the limited administrative capacity of Member States to handle all the funding available, a separate budget should be allocated for national and regional administrative tasks required to develop large-scale transport infrastructure projects, especially to help secure land sales agreements and avoid corruption of public officials;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Is concerned that long waiting times at internal EU borders negatively affect EU-funded infrastructure and decrease its overall usability, with impacts on cities and citizens, air quality and noise pollution, as well as an increased risk of road accidents, while compromising working conditions for drivers; calls, therefore, for ~~one minute to be set as the~~the establishment of a minimum EU-wide standard time for the processing of heavy-duty vehicles at EU borders, in order to help facilitate optimal usage of transport infrastructure and networks;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26 a. Calls for the fast adoption of the European Cross-Border Mechanism as a way to improve the efficiency of EU investments in cross-border transport infrastructure;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Reminds that large transport infrastructure contribute to the sustainable development of European regions by enhancing green connectivity, which contributes to protecting the environment though the reduction of CO2 emissions;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Calls on the Commission to establish a European fast track for the infrastructure projects along the core and comprehensive TEN-T network; The fast track should comprise of three pillars: - Binding ex ante consultations between the Member States and the Commission, prior to the submission of the projects application forms. This should shorten the procedure time by allowing the Member States to address potential negative observations by the Commission services as early as possible; - Accelerated environment impact assessment procedure and approval by the Commission to further reduce the application-to-implementation times; - Common EU-wide minimum standards for financial and economic assessment of the projects (i.e. economic viability, maturity, return on investment). This should bring clarity, uniformity and should work to minimise any potential issues arising with the carrying out of audits;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Proposes that contingency measures and funding flexibility be considered in order to allow for the continued implementation and completion of key projects in the event of force majeure or crisis situations and taking into account the general lengthy project duration, the introduction of appropriate indexing or other models to adjust construction and raw materials costs to the rate of inflation;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that Member States’ transport networks cannot be looked at in isolation; stresses that the proper connectivity within and between European regions is crucial, especially with regard to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the critical need to establish alternative logistics routes using various transport modes; is concerned that the current social and political post-pandemic outlook, combined with the consequences of the war, is posing a further threat to the timely completion and development of large projects; highlights, therefore that the extension of the European transport network corridors to neighbouring non-EU countries (such as Ukraine, Moldova, North Macedonia, Albania, etc.) would significantly improve the seamless functioning of the TEN-T network; Underlines that success of the large transport infrastructure projects in the EU will depend to a large extent on how well it succeeds in connecting the infrastructure of the Eastern Member States to that of the Western European Union;

Amendment 6 #

Corina CREȚU, Maria GRAPINI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that Member States’ transport networks cannot be looked at in isolation since a Europe-wide transport network has been clearly acknowledged as vision whose benefits go beyond isolated national action; stresses that the proper connectivity within and between European regions is crucial~~, especially with regard to~~ and has been proven especially with the COVID-19 pandemic crisis as well as with Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the critical need to establish alternative logistics routes using various transport modes; is concerned that the current social and political post-pandemic outlook, combined with the consequences of the war, is posing a further threat to the timely completion and development of large projects; highlights, therefore that the extension of the European transport network corridors to neighbouring non-EU countries (such as Ukraine, Moldova, North Macedonia, Albania, etc.) would significantly improve the seamless functioning of the TEN-T network;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Underlines that any extension of the TEN-T network- maritime, river or road should be done with the agreement of the countries concerned and respecting the International Agreements in force;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Remarks that with the Trans- European Transport Network policy, the EU aims to build an effective EU-wide transport infrastructure network through EU funding programmes and initiatives including the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the European Fund for Strategic Investment, Horizon 2020, or the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), among others;

Amendment 9 #